[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Help on RAID (sarge RC2) - newbie

On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 09:34 -0800, Marc Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 02:42:19PM +0100, kaupolikan@NOSPAMlibero.it wrote:
> <long description of silliness with mdadm removed>
> You used mdadm instead of raidtools for some reason, didn't set
> /etc/default/mdadm to autostart arrays not started by the kernel, and you
> don't have the partitions making up the array set to the proper type such
> that the kernel would be able to autostart it for you.
> Plus, you've got RAID support as a module, so unless you explicitly loaded
> the module for it, it'll never work.  You can't use kernel autostart at
> all in that case.

The fact he didn't force the inclusion of md and raidX in his rebuilt
initrd is what is causing his problems. He didn't rebuild his initrd.img
at all.

> Why do cluebies insist on using mdadm?

Really. Hmmm. Is there any reason you don't use mdadm?

> greg@abeast:~$ df
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md1               1989568    101584   1887984   6% /
> tmpfs                   485756         0    485756   0% /dev/shm
> /dev/md0                141760      8752    133008   7% /boot
> /dev/md4               9989504     18436   9971068   1% /home
> /dev/md3                995008       660    994348   1% /tmp
> /dev/md5              15426176    186996  15239180   2% /usr
> /dev/md2               9989504    186856   9802648   2% /var
> greg@abeast:~$ dpkg -l | grep -i -e mdadm -e raid
> ii  mdadm          1.8.1-1        Manage MD devices aka Linux Software Raid

Okay, tell me again, what is your problem with mdadm?

I have issues with raidtools, as in NOT working everytime. mdadm just
works for me.

Maybe because the D-I installs mdadm by default when using MD Devices.

Plus, configless mdadm is easily possible. Does raidtools still have to
a config?

Also there is a wonderful bug in the combo of kernel-2.6, udev and
initrd-tools. Don't suggest going to a 2.6 kernel, unless you do the
workaround(s) in the bug report.


Don't go off half-cocked like that. It sets bad precedence here in D-U
which is bad enough already.
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net

The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: